That's a huge design flaw.
As a swing-wing plane, putting weapon stations on the wings meant they'd have to pivot in the opposite direction of the wing motion to keep the bombs/missiles pointing forward (so they didn't become an aerodynamic drag.) Pivoting ordnance stations on the wings would also mean the wing swing servos would need to be larger and more powerful (aka heavier). So no ordnance on the wings.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm
The other heavy consumable part of a fighter is the fuel. Most of the fuel on the F-14 was carried inside the fuselage between the engines. There were small tanks in the wings (which mean there was a flexible hose connecting it - that likely leaked) but most of it was stored along the centerline of the aircraft, helping with the center of gravity and allowing it to turn faster.
I LOVED seeing the F14 fly in the 80s at an air show. Total star of the show - I can't believe how close to the ground they fly that thing!
The AIM-54's never lived up to their name as an air to air missle, since it was meant to shoot down bombers, which never flew (and you know: thankfully never flew). Though they tried against fighters - that wasn't very successfully (except for Iran?).
One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure - of course: if one could go back in time 30+ years to install it.
Good point on the variable swept wings not allowing hard points, didn't think about that. The F111 did allow for ordinances on the wings and they did it in the method you've described (tho much larger plane)
Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane!
And another one next to an A-10. Notice how substantial the landing gear is on the F-14 compared to the A-10, and the A-10 was designed for landings on improvised runways...
In short, carrier landings are closer to controlled crashes over the thing that everyone is calling landings.
It could be possible that with full-authority fly-by-wire flight controls, a flight computer could prevent departures in case of single engine failure. I doubt anyone with enough F-14 flight dynamics knowledge is going to be on HN (you never know though!) to say if there was enough authority in the controls in these parts of the envelope to recover from such scenarios.
While not the same failure mode, the SR-71 in the '80s acquired a system called "DAFICS": Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System. During supersonic flight, you could get inlet unstart (ejection of the internal normal shock and a resultant sudden decrease in thrust due to poor inlet performance) - which typically occurred asymmetrically and was not uncommon. DAFICS sensed an impending unstart and actually forced both inlets to simultaneously unstart. A less expensive patch than redesigning a finicky inlet already 20+ years old.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/85...
That aside aside, the real fix the F-14 needed was the GE engines (A+/D model). So you likely ought to blame the losses of these airframes from engine-induced issues on acquisition system decisions, rather than the airframe design itself.
They did a number on the Iraqi air force, you could argue that they got their money’s worth. They got more actual combat use out of them than the US ever did.
If you want to understand more about the genesis of the configuration, look on YouTube for "Peninsula Valley Seniors" or "Western Museum of Flight" for a talk by Mike Ciminera of Grumman.